The Special Criminal Court ruled today that it is entitled to go ahead with an application by the State to confiscate over £14 million of assets allegedly owned by convicted drugs dealer John Gilligan.
The court rejected submissions by Gilligan's lawyers that he was entitled to a jury trial for the application.
The State is seeking to confiscate £14.2 million which it alleges were Gilligan's profits from importing 20,000 kilos of cannabis resininto the country over a two year period.
The court has heard that the State wants the High Court to appoint a receiver to realise Gilligan's assets which allegedly include anequestrian centre at Jessbrook, two houses in Lucan, a house at Blanchardstown, six vehicles, sixteen bank accounts and over £5 millionhe staked in bets.
Gilligan is serving a twenty eight years prison sentence imposed by the Special Criminal Court on March 15th last for importing cannabis resin. He was cleared of the murder of journalist Veronica Guerin on June 26th, 1996.
Mr Justice Diarmuid O' Donovan, presiding, said that section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act of 1994 obliged the court to determine whether a person convicted of drug trafficking has benefited financially from it.
The judge said this was part of the process which commenced when Gilligan was charged in the courts. He said the proceedings do not conclude until either the court decides not to make a confiscation order or until that order is made and carried out.
He said it was the court's view that given its presumption of constitutionality there was nothing "draconian" about Section 4 of the Act.He said the application by the State was part of self contained statutory code, the procedures of which are set out and presumed to be constitutional. It was the court's view that it is obliged to follow this procedure, he added.
Mr Justice O' Donovan said the court had no doubt that the determination under section 4 was a criminalrather than a civil issue and thatthe court has jurisdiction to deal with it.The judge also said that the 1994 Criminal Justice Act has a presumption of constitutionality which the court is not empowered to question.
The court adjourned the State's application for mention again on October 2nd when it will try and fix a date for hearing it during the next law term.